Home - List All Discussions

For those who said abortion is safer than gestation

pro-aborts please explain your explanation

by: galen

here is the link...
yes its on a prolife site, however the study was done for public health reasons..not by 'the industry'.
edit link
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/category/4/99/30/

reply from: sander

The number of women diagnosed with breast cancer is growing.
In 1970, before the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion, 1 in 12 women was diagnosed with breast cancer. Today, it is 1 in 7 women.
Every 40 minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer that is attributable to abortion. That's 13,000 cases of breast cancer attributable to abortion each year
There's going to be some explaining to do one day. But, in the meantime as long as the babies keep being killed the heck with the woman's health.

reply from: galen

here is the quote if it won't come up for you on the site
A 13-year study of pregnancy-associated deaths, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, found that the maternal mortality rate associated with abortion is 2.95 times higher than the maternal mortality rate associated with pregnancies carried to term.
The study included the entire population of women 15-49 years of age in Finland, 1987-2000. The researchers linked birth and abortion records to death certificates.
The annual death rate of women who had abortions in the previous year was also 46% higher than that of non-pregnant women.
Women who carried to term (gave birth) had a significantly lower death rate than non-pregnant women.
Non-pregnant women had 57.0 deaths per 100,000, compared to only 28.2 for women who carried to term (gave birth), 51.9 for women who miscarried, and 83.1 deaths for women who had abortions.
[Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P. Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. Am J Ob Gyn 2004; 190:422-427. Finland National Research and Development Center]

reply from: sander

Thanks for quoting the article, I couldn't see that.
Wow, that's stunning. Not that the abortion industry cares.

reply from: galen

no they would rather believe that its more than safe... maybe in their twisted logic... baby is smaller= safer for mother.
wrong

reply from: sander

Anytime you mess with the natural order of things, there's bound to be problems!

reply from: teddybearhamster

i don't see how it could be safer to abort. from a scientific view, childbirth is natural. abortion is not.

reply from: sander

Exactly right.
And they know that, it's just that abortion rights supercedes even the health of the women getting the abortions. It's puzzling to say the least!

reply from: cracrat

I'm not questioning the veracity of your statement, but how does an abortion induce breast cancer? That seems counter intuitive to me. Does abortion cause any other cancers?

reply from: sk1bianca

some doctors believe that abortion leaves the breast cells in a permanent suspended state where they are neither dormant nor mature and that these cells are susceptible to undergo malignant change.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james3.htm
">http://www.newswithviews.com/H...tine/james3.htm
also try this link: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc_summary.htm
A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy - after 32 weeks gestation - that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.
When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called "proliferation." By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.
If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called "differentiation" takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.
If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.
In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

Well stated, sk1bianca. Now if cracrat can only make out the words you posted.....

reply from: sander

Doctor's familiar with and who work in the women's health field will tell you that estradiol is the cancer hormone. My own doctor told me this, though I researched it well before seeing the doctor. Natural alternative hormone replacement therapy for women in menopause never contain estradiol. Very few doctors who specialize in natural hormone therapy will include it in their protocol. The medical community is aware, they just refuse to make the connection to abortion for reasons I can't fathom.

reply from: yoda

Sure you can..... they're either prodeathers themselves, or they have no balls and are scared to death of the prodeathers.

reply from: sander

Sure you can..... they're either prodeathers themselves, or they have no balls and are scared to death of the prodeathers.
Right! What was I thinking?
Guess I should have said, for reasons that make me sick!
Prodeathers are scary, but those who are afraid need to GROW A PAIR!

reply from: 4given

This is more evidence that abortion truly hurts women and how often women are lied to to "seal the deal". I should pull the articles on what abortion worker's say..

reply from: 4given

Selling Abortion to Confused Young Women
I'm sure you've seen those numbers advertised that say "Problem Pregnancy," "Abortion Information," or "Pregnant?". When a young girl finds out she is pregnant, she may not want an abortion, she may just want information.
But when she calls that number that's paid for by abortion money, what kind of information do you think she is going to get? Remember, they sell abortions. They don't sell keeping the baby. They don't sell giving the baby up. They don't sell delivering the baby in any form. They only sell abortions.
The counselor that the girl speaks to on the telephone is paid to be her friend. She is supposed to seduce her into a friendship of sorts to sell her the abortion.
I cannot tell you one thing that happens in an abortion clinic that is not a lie.
There are usually two questions the girls ask. The first is: Does it hurt? "Oh, no. Your uterus is a muscle. It's a cramp to open it: a cramp to close it; it's a slight cramping sensation. Everybody's had cramps - every woman in the world."
Then they ask: Is it a baby? "No, it's product of conception; it's a blood clot; it's a piece of tissue."
When the girl goes in for the abortion she pays up front then goes into a room for counseling. They give her a 6 to 12 page form. This form is written by an abortion attorney to confuse the girl to death. It works and she doesn't ask any questions. She goes back to the two questions: Does it hurt? Is it a baby?
I cannot tell you one thing that happens in an abortion clinic that is not a lie.
http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/everett.htm
Women Injured -- and Killed
The girls that walk out of there are the lucky ones. We were seeing over 500 abortions per month and doing one-day second and third trimester abortions. We didn't use the laminaria, we did all the dilation on that one day and we were seeing a tremendous amount of complications.
The girls that walk out of there are the lucky ones.
Yes, we had a death. A 32-year old woman with a 17-year-old son and a 2-year-old son. Never made the papers. Her boyfriend felt guilty for his part in the abortion and he didn't want to deal with it. Her family thought, yes, she had probably had an abortion, but they didn't want to deal with it. It never came out. No lawsuit.
Then there was the girl who the doctors decided had a fibroid tumor at the back of her uterus. That's a highly common tumor that's very rarely malignant. The two doctors decided they were just going to pull it out after her abortion. They didn't know they were pulling on the back of her uterus, and they pulled the uterus out wrong-side-out of a 21-year-old; she had a hysterectomy.

reply from: galen

For those who are unaware.. the stats shown in the quote are considered quite HIGH for mortality rates... when a disease has a mortality rate i think its catagorized like BSLIII.... almost as bad as flu... we have a vaccine for flu.. why not get rid of abortion and save those women?

reply from: galen

so where oh where are the proaborts?... nothing to say?

reply from: cracrat

Well stated, sk1bianca. Now if cracrat can only make out the words you posted.....
Are you suggesting I can't read? I was asking an innocent enough question about something I hadn't realised was the case.

reply from: yoda

No, I was recalling your unwillingness to respond to the content of another post, on another thread....... I know you CAN read.....

reply from: cracrat

No, I was recalling your unwillingness to respond to the content of another post, on another thread....... I know you CAN read.....
Oh sorry, did I miss one? I was away all weekend and lost track of various posts. Please bump it if I've missed a question.

reply from: yoda

No, I've already drawn your attention to it.... belatedly.....

reply from: galen

i noticed kay and skippy on at times today...what no one cares to comment...

reply from: sander

That's radical talk...."save women"...sheesh.
<end sarcasim>

reply from: Skippy

I only need to see the words "Finland study" and I know I don't even have to open the link. Any study that counts homicides and car accidents as abortion-related deaths isn't of any value.

reply from: galen

read on skippy... i actually enjoy debating you... but the study is only a partial quote.. read the stuff at the link.
Don't you find it even a little odd that having an abortion presupposes you for an early death.. what if suicide is caused by depression that was a direct result of the abortion... wouldn't you'defender ofwomen's rights' have to take a look at that?

reply from: Skippy

I think that women who engage in high-risk behavior are more likely to end up in need of an abortion. They are also more likely to be drug addicted, suicidal, HIV+, or in myriad other bad situations that result in their death. That doesn't mean abortion caused their death.
However, since I respect you, I will take a look at your link and get back to you.

reply from: galen

Kay, as you are on i'd love to see your opinion on these stats...

reply from: sheri

We have known this to be true for a long time however it's good to see it proven!
Wouldn't it be nice if the abortionist were required to report when they killed a woman? Then we would see more truefull studies like this in our own nation.
There is a link on the LDI home page that lists women who have died from abortion it is very sobering.

reply from: galen

skippy where did you run off too?

reply from: jujujellybean

lol the pro aborts are gone....

reply from: 4given

I learned that states aren't required to report abortions.. at least with my state. One would think a death realted to an elective surgery would be an important statistic. They give statistics about vaccine allergies and death- why not abortion? Shouldn't that be included with the other forms the abortuary has them sign their child's life over on?

reply from: sheri

We had an incident in our city where we prolifers witnessed an ambulance picking up a woman who had died at the hands of our local abortionist. We would never have known about it had we not saw it ourselves because the pathologist listed the death as "hemmorrhage". It was very vauge and it was almost impossible to get any details, but the abortionist continued to operate for years after that.

reply from: 4given

How sad! I have read a lot about the many deaths from the slaughtering hand of an abortionist- I can't help but to wonder how many times they are alone with the "I only intended to kill____ people today.." From what I have read, the women are thought of as nothing more than the paper they paid for their dirty deed to be done with. If only the truth could be told within the bloodied walls.. Adopt an abortionist.. in prayer every day. So the reports indicate the effects that led to the death, but not the deed that caused it? So do the parents of gun shot victims also have hemorrhage listed as the cause of death, or is it hemorrhage due to gun shot trauma?

reply from: lukesmom

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1516/49/

2. REARDON/COLEMAN STUDY: Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women.
South Med J 2002 Aug; 95(8):834-41. Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW.
Link to the actual study ttp://www.afterabortion.org/News/deaths_smj.html
47 References
RECORD-LINKED STUDY
Linked death records to Medi-Cal payments for births & abortions for ~173,000 low income CA women in 1989.
The study compared women whose history of pregnancy outcomes fell into 5 different categories.

The delivery-only group had the fewest deaths and the abortion-only group had the most deaths.

-- Women who had abortions were almost twice as likely to die in the following 2 years
-- the elevated mortality rate of aborting women persisted over at least 8 years (1989-1997).
-- difference in death rates between the delivery-only group and the abortion-only group continued to be significant even when controlling for previous psychiatric problems.
Projected on the national population, this effect may contribute to 2000-5000 additional deaths among women each year.

The authors suggest that delivering a child has a protective effect on women.

When specific causes of death were examined, two findings stand out.
1. abortion increases the risk of dying from AIDS and
2. of dying from cardiovascular disease.

reply from: lukesmom

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/631/50/

Suicide After Abortion (1994)
"Twenty-eight percent of women who regret their abortions attempt suicide, and over half of these women attempt suicide more than once," according to a study by the Elliot Institute.
("Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion," Post-Abortion Review, Fall 1994, pp. 4-8; P.O. Box 9079, Springfield, IL 62791-9079)

Suicide Rate Higher After Abortion (MN, 1986; Medi-Cal,1989; Elliot,1993)
A new Elliot Institute study has found women who have had abortions are more likely to commit suicide than those who have given birth.
The study examined Medi-Cal records for 173,000+ low-income CA women who had abortions or gave birth in 1989.
Linking these records to death certificates, researchers found that women who had state-funded abortions were 2.6 times more likely to die of suicide than women who delivered their babies.
The average annual suicide rate per 100,000 women was 3.0 for delivering women, compared to 7.8 for aborting women.
The national average suicide rate for women between the ages of 15 - 44 is 5.2 per 100,000.
These CA aborted women have a higher suicide rate than women in general, while giving birth reduced women's suicide risk.
[www.afterabortion.org; The Post-Abortion Review, Apr-Jun 2001; Family Resources Ctr News, Oct-Nov01]
SUICIDE ATTEMPTS ASSOCIATED WITH INDUCED ABORTION - One of the best kept secrets in the abortion industry is the significant increase in suicide in the one year following the abortion.
According to a 1986 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota, a teenage girl is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if she has had an abortion in the last six months than is a comparable teenage girl who has not had an abortion.
Below is a synopsis of the article:
Teens are generally at a higher risk for both suicide and abortion. In a survey of teenaged girls, researchers at U of MN found that the rate of attempted suicide in the six months prior to the study increased 10 fold-from 0.4% for girls who had not aborted to 4% for teens who had aborted in the previous six months.
Reference: Garfinkle, B., et. al., "Stress, Depression, and Suicide: A study of Adolescents in Minnesota" (Minneapolis: Univ Minnesota Extension Service, 1986)
Meta Uchtman, Director of Cincinnati chapter of Suiciders Anonymous, reported that in a 35 month period her group worked with 4000 women, of whom 1800 or more had abortions. Of those who had abortions, 1400 were between the ages of 15 and 24, the age group with the fastest growing suicide rate in the country.
Suicidal impulses may result from years of repression, depression, and lost self-esteem.
A 1987 study of women who suffered from post-abortion trauma found that 60% had experienced suicidal ideation, 28% had attempted suicide, and 18% had attempted suicide more than once, often several years after the event.
[Reardon, "A Survey of Psychological Reactions," Springfield IL, Elliot Institute, 1987; from "The Abortion/Suicide Connection", The Post-Abortion Review, vol.1 no.2, Summer 1993]

Abortion Contributes to Increased Suicide Among Youth (8/03)
A report from the National Institutes of Health finds that not only are girls and young women more likely to think about committing suicide, they're much more likely to follow through. Dr. David Reardon [dir, Elliot Inst] says abortion is partly to blame for the increase: "Given the fact that more than half of all women having abortions are under the age of 25, and more than 20 percent of women having abortions are teenagers, the increased suicide rate among teens and young women is sadly not a surprise". An Elliot Institute study published in 8/03 Southern Medical Journal found that women who had abortions were 7 times more likely to commit suicide than women who gave birth. [LifeNews.com, #3199, 3Mar04]

reply from: galen

don't you guys just love that site?
So much useful info...

reply from: lukesmom

It's under my "favorites" list. Everytime I look at it I find something interesting.

reply from: galen

i do wish nurses for life could get this much support..

reply from: sander

How sad! I have read a lot about the many deaths from the slaughtering hand of an abortionist- I can't help but to wonder how many times they are alone with the "I only intended to kill____ people today.." From what I have read, the women are thought of as nothing more than the paper they paid for their dirty deed to be done with. If only the truth could be told within the bloodied walls.. Adopt an abortionist.. in prayer every day. So the reports indicate the effects that led to the death, but not the deed that caused it? So do the parents of gun shot victims also have hemorrhage listed as the cause of death, or is it hemorrhage due to gun shot trauma?
The abortionist has a license to kill...doesn't seem to matter if it's the child AND mother, both are disposable.
How could it have come to this?
Why are there so many defenders of this murderous operation (no pun intended)?
Killers with no accountability=abortionists.

reply from: yoda

And also a license to lie, according to abortionist Hodari, who recently was found to have disposed of his victims in a dumpster behind his mill.

reply from: sander

And also a license to lie, according to abortionist Hodari, who recently was found to have disposed of his victims in a dumpster behind his mill.
And people wonder why our society seems to be going to heck in a hand basket.

reply from: cracrat

Society isn't going to heck in a hand basket. People just have a tendancy to romanticise what it was like 'in their day'. Sure there are problems, but some of the problems of yesteryear have been solved. Lord knows I'd rather live in today's society than that of 50 or 150 years ago.

reply from: yoda

Were you alive 50 years ago? I was, and I can tell you that many, many things were better back then than they are now.... even though a few were worse. I have to say I agree with sander.... society, as I see it, is right on the edge of self-destruction.

reply from: cracrat

Were you alive 50 years ago? I was, and I can tell you that many, many things were better back then than they are now.... even though a few were worse. I have to say I agree with sander.... society, as I see it, is right on the edge of self-destruction.
Really?
Equality for race, gender, sexuality on paper at least if not quite in practice yet. Childhood diseases like polio, rickets, mumps, measles, rubella, tuberculosis mostly solved. Cancer is still scary but not the immediate death sentance it once was. Standard of living improving all the time. International travel and awareness. Cold war over. You guys will shortly have your first black or female presidential candidate (though I'm well aware of how many of you feel about that pair). Unprecedented levels of healthcare and education in this country. Further breakdown of the old class systems. The European empires mostly gone. The list goes on and on.

reply from: yoda

None of which compensates for the loss of individual dignity for the unborn, or the worship of perversion over hard work and honesty. Our values are vastly different.

reply from: cracrat

The values that one holds dear are not necessarily those of society as a whole. I deplore vast swathes of the world in which we live. The relentless tide of idiocy would depress me greatly if I hadn't learnt to laugh at it a long time ago. The money worship, whilst by no means new, seems to be without end. Celebrity worship is beyond me. My mum occassionally teaches and on one occassion she and the class were discussing life ambitions. One child said they wanted to be famous, when question famous for what, the child had no reply. Apparently being famous is now an end in itself and an end which I find incredibly sad.
There are problems still to be solved and new ones too, and I don't have all the answers or knowledge to solve them as yet. What I do know though is that we'll get there without going backwards.

reply from: yoda

How often do you have to take those rose colored glasses off to clean them?

reply from: cracrat

How often do you have to take those rose colored glasses off to clean them?
Not so much. I find hopeless optimism a far superior lens through which to view the world than hopeless pesimism.

reply from: yoda

And those are the only two options you are aware of?

reply from: sander

Were you alive 50 years ago? I was, and I can tell you that many, many things were better back then than they are now.... even though a few were worse. I have to say I agree with sander.... society, as I see it, is right on the edge of self-destruction.
Notwithstanding the wonderful medical advances and "some" human equality, they could never justify the slaughter of the innocent babies. The culture of death will eventually supercede the postive changes.

reply from: cracrat

And those are the only two options you are aware of?
Which others would you advise me to add to my repertoire?

reply from: cracrat

I didn't say we'd got it right yet. Sadly the human race seems only able to learn the most important lessons by a tragedy first methodology. And even then we are painfully slow on the uptake. Each generation seems less inclined to make the mistakes of their father's. One day we'll get there, I only hope I'm still alive to see it.

reply from: galen

sadly Cracrat most of those vaccines you made mention of were created about 50 years ago...

reply from: galen

skippy we're waiting.....
nothing to say... or did the truth scare you?

reply from: galen

just incase jo missed this

reply from: ProInformed

Nope - they have nothing to say BECAUSE their concern for the rights, health, lives of women isn't their REAL reason for defending abortion.
Abortion enables the sexual exploitation of women.
Treating women and their babies as objects, 'products', to be used and/or disposed of is the motive behind the pro-abort mentality.
So what do they care if women are lied to, injured, or even killed by abortion?
Hey as long as they can still have 'free sex' there's no problem as far as they are 'concerned'.
Yes, there are female pro-aborts too but they have basically conceded to the myth that males are superior to females. They believe females can and should only be 'equal' to the lowest of males. They don't want to behave as maturely as the best of males because they think it's more fun to act like the 'playboy' males. They think feminism is being able to be promiscuous. Abortion allows them to be promiscuous and irresponsible too. OK, maybe IF they believed the statistics linking abortion to breast cancer they might be bothered... but they refuse to believe it... probably because to them it would just seem so unfair since the sort of males they emulate seem to safely get away with being promiscuous. They worship abortion for its ability to make them more like the lounge-lizard type of male. Info that reveals anything negative about abortion typically is scoffed at by them.
If/when the statistics linking abortion to breast cancer become so obvious that even the biased media can no longer ignore it maybe abortion clinics will start offering boob jobs with the abortion - just have your natural breast removed and replaced with silly putty so you won't get the breast cancer? ANYTHING but accept natural female biology as is, anything but live a responsible, non-exploitative, non-violent lifestyle.

reply from: cracrat

There are many things people here say that I agree with and at least as many that I disagree with. But this is really starting to get on my nerves. All you sanctimonious self-righteous tossers seem to think that there is a single homogenous mould from which every pro-abort is cast. There are innumerable reasons for a person to be pro-choice, or indeed pro-life. Every single person has slightly different set of reasons for their stance to the next person. Your efforts to tar all pro-choicers with the same brush is both insulting and counter-productive.

reply from: sander

Oh heck, the whole post is worth repeating!

reply from: rsg007

Oh heck, the whole post is worth repeating!
Indeed, so I can pick it apart piece by piece!
First off, concern for women's rights is definitely my reason for advocating elective abortion. I can't speak for other pro-choicers, but I'll bet most of them would say the same thing.
Abortion does not enable the sexual exploitation of women--it enables the sexual freedom of women, which includes the right to have sex when, how and with whom they want without possibly having to carry a child for 9 months and possibly care for it for 18 years.
It is the pro-life mentality that treats women as objects--objects who must produce offspring if they and their partner make a mistake and get accidentally pregnant during sex.
So what do pro-lifers care if women are injured, killed, emotionally damaged by having to be pregnant?
Feminism has nothing to do with wanting to be promiscuous--perhaps some women want to be, and that's fine (just as if men want to be too) as long as they have safe and consensual sex. Perhaps other women just want the freedom to have sex with their one partner without being required to carry a baby to term if they get accidentally pregnant.
Abortion is a responsible way of preventing a child from entering a life of being unwanted, neglected or even abused.
Women who have never given birth are at a higher risk for breast cancer, but this doesn't just mean those who have had abortions--it includes those who have chosen to never have children or those who are celibate (e.g., nuns). Should these women be forced to give birth just to lower their risk of getting breast cancer? It's their choice to assume whatever risks go with aborting/never having kids. And I agree, we should strive to inform everyone of the (accurate) facts surrounding every aspect of healthcare.
Women do not want elective abortion so they can be equal to the "lowest" of males, as you put it (who said being promiscuous makes you "low," anyway?) They want it so they can be equal to any and every man, who always have the ultimate say over what happens to their own body.

reply from: sander

Oh heck, the whole post is worth repeating!
Sadly, I'm sure most proaborts have bought that lie too.
Oh, wouldn't you love that to be true. But, dear...it's not just YOU having sex, there's a man involved, if a baby should be the outcome.
How nice, so kill the "mistake", we were just having a little fun. Really?
The "offspring" is another human being, not a mistake.
It's sickening that you've allowed yourself to become so blind to being an object.
I fault the brainwashing of the proabort advocates, but you've got a brain, use it.
Feminism has relegated women to the role of being a sex object, is your body not worth more than a one night stand? I know the potential human being created is meaningless in the proabort view, but you should at least respect a woman's body to be more than just a sex object.
Promiscuous sex hurts more than the body, it hurts the very soul of a woman. Everytime you have sex with someone, you're giving a little piece of your very essensence away.
Did you find the infalable crystal ball? What a poor excuse for killing another human being.
You mis-understand the role of abortion in developing breast cancer. It has to do with the interruption of the developing cells in the breast tissue. Celibacy doesn't create those cells in the first place. But, still the information is never given to the aborting woman, so she's again hung out to dry.
Woman do have the ultimate say in what happens to their bodies, we just hope the best for them in not giving away themeselves to uncommitted partners and hope they will develope enough self respect and love for themselves that being promiscuous will not be an option.

reply from: lukesmom

You are wrong, EVERY prolifer believes the right to life includes the unborn as well as the born. THAT is basic to the prolife movement. Only proaborts have "different set of reasons" and excuses for their stance.

reply from: cracrat

You are wrong, EVERY prolifer believes the right to life includes the unborn as well as the born. THAT is basic to the prolife movement. Only proaborts have "different set of reasons" and excuses for their stance.
No. That is the outcome of their pro-life stance, the result of their personal decision. The reasons they become pro-life can be many and varied. For example Faramir seems to be pro-life as a result of his faith. CarolMarie appears to be pro-life as a result of her previous experience with abortion. Why are you pro-life? Faith? Previous experience? Something else?

reply from: galen

-----
skippy poo where are you?

reply from: lukesmom

You are wrong, EVERY prolifer believes the right to life includes the unborn as well as the born. THAT is basic to the prolife movement. Only proaborts have "different set of reasons" and excuses for their stance.
No. That is the outcome of their pro-life stance, the result of their personal decision. The reasons they become pro-life can be many and varied. For example Faramir seems to be pro-life as a result of his faith. CarolMarie appears to be pro-life as a result of her previous experience with abortion. Why are you pro-life? Faith? Previous experience? Something else?
I have always been prolife. Faramir became Catholic but that doesn't make you prolife, Carole's experiences didn't make her prolife either. What makes us prolife is the realization and acceptance that unborn life IS as deserving of life as born life no matter what our experiences have been.

reply from: cracrat

The capitalist system operating in this country and yours requires there to be losers as well as winners. Killing off the poor would remove the essential workers who do the menial tasks we rely on every day for the smooth running of society, after all a society is built on the backs of those who hew the stone and draw the water. Removing those segmants which perform these tasks, whilst tempararily solving the 'poor problem', would create so many more problems than we can even begin to imagine. So no, killing the poor is in no way, shape or form a responsible way of dealing with them.

reply from: sk1bianca

there's one problem with that logic... the child has already "entered a life". we can't speak about neglect and abuse as if it was something unavoidable, as if we could ever be 100% sure it will happen. this kind of behaviour towards a child is an exception. and what about dismembering a child alive and throwing him into the garbage? isn't that abuse? how "responsible" is that?
interesting link: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_31.asp#But%20don

reply from: galen

---------
i agree

reply from: galen

well here is the first time in a while i've seen skippy run from an argument...

reply from: ProInformed

Bumping for Joe to read (on the very slim chance that he has ANY genuine concern for women getting breast cancer becuase of having an abortion).

reply from: galen

oh skippy remember this....? i may have brain damage... but gee you sure do forget a lot...

reply from: nancyu

http://www.shareyourstory.org/webx/.ef6090b
http://www.shareyourstory.org/webx?14@483.MOlLbnGGf8E@.ef625b9!discloc=.ef625c1

reply from: Shenanigans

Looked after a woman once who had mets up her spine. The docs couldn't find the primary. After a few weeks and a lot of investigations they found it - on scarring in her uterus, scarring from the three abortions she'd had. She did have three pregnancies carried to term and thus three kids under 5 with only 2 months to live. The docs didnt tell her thats where the cancer came from because they didn't want her spending her last days viewing her cancer as a punishment for her child killing antics - she had expressed regret.
She died three days later. She was 31. Wasn't a pleasant death either.

reply from: prochoiceinNY

it sux that some woman will die having abortions, but thats wht the risks are with any medicl procedur. but even if abortn does, and i'm not saying it does, i'm saying you guys are full of *****, but even if abortion does have some bad affect on future health it is very rare and it doesn't mean a woman shouldnt have the choice to abort a unwanted pregnancy.

reply from: Yuuki

She's not getting rid if an unwanted pregnancy. She is killing her baby.

reply from: clrought

Does anyone care about the cover up of women who die everyday from their so call it safe abortions?
Also does anyone care about all the hurting women who had abortions? Plus all the women who have
all cans of health problem from their abortions?

reply from: faithman

view what this deqath scanc says a woman has the right to do to a defencless child. http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby1.html

reply from: sander

Yes, there are people who care. Most (not all, we do have die hard abortion fans) on this forum care very much and try to do something about it.
Btw, welcome to PLA.

reply from: Shenanigans

I for one, am praying for the hastening of the Apocalypse.
Don't wanna be a killer of children on that day, no way, no how.

reply from: Yuuki

Of course we care. And I think pro-choicers care too; many of them are just ordinary men and women, not the psychopaths some of the people on here would have you believe. Many pro-chociers do care a lot about women being hurt, but believe the clinics are providing a good service. However, they also feel they have to justify their position because it is something truly monsterous. That's one of the many goals I have as a pro-lifer: to help make clinics safer so women aren't harmed and so that their babies aren't killed.

reply from: 4given

I am confused by this statement. Surely it is horrible that women are harmed by their abortion, but their children are always harmed beyond repair. They are in fact killed. I don't quite get the last of it either.. Are you speaking of an abortion clinic? How do you intend to prevent an abortion clinic from killing people for profit?

reply from: 4given

I am sorry about your abortion. There are groups that can help you. http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/, http://www.operationoutcry.org/
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/ "Call upon me in the day of trouble and I will deliver you " says the Lord. The Lord may use you to help others find healing. Praying He delivers you from your pain and opens up a calling according to the future planned for you. He loves you.

reply from: CDC700

There is nothing safe about abortion at all. A baby dies every time. How can that be confusing to anyone?

reply from: sander

Good question.
Waiting for answer.

reply from: sander

Of course we care. And I think pro-choicers care too; many of them are just ordinary men and women, not the psychopaths some of the people on here would have you believe. Many pro-chociers do care a lot about women being hurt, but believe the clinics are providing a good service. However, they also feel they have to justify their position because it is something truly monsterous. That's one of the many goals I have as a pro-lifer: to help make clinics safer so women aren't harmed and so that their babies aren't killed.
Are you insane?
"Not the psychopaths"? Have you read any of pcny's posts, or rosalie or spitwad, or.......?????
If you're not talking about "abortion clinics" then your post is more confusing than ususal.
All other clinics are subject to regulations, so you must be talking about the death mills...yikes.

reply from: yoda

You mean "the choice to kill her baby"?
But yeah, on the other hand, I kind of agree with you..... risks to aborting women's health are not the real moral reason no one should have an elective abortion..... it's that 99.9% risk that the baby will be killed. But of course, if it works to reduce abortions, I have no problem with those risks to the woman being mentioned.

reply from: yoda

How do you prevent babies from being killed by making abortion mills "safer"?

reply from: faithman

How do you prevent babies from being killed by making abortion mills "safer"?
Any law, at the end of the day, says you get to kill a womb child is not pro-life. It only makes Abortion on demand harder to fight, as it makes it look legit to kill womb children if you only do it right. Only the willingly stupid would not see that.

reply from: Shenanigans

Its kind of chilling though, one of my major annoyances with dangerous (to the mum) abortions is that if she dies she hasn't had a chance to repent. I don't think "I wanna continue my schooling" or "I was scared to tell my parents" or "The dad is a married man and if I'm pregnant the wife will know" are not gonna cut it with the Almighty.
If a woman dies during an abortion, that she wanted, and sought, well, she looses more then her life, that's for sure.

reply from: 4given

I agree. I was confused by this: Which is it.."clinics safer" or "babies aren't killed"? Isn't she talking about abortion clinics?! But she is pro-life?! I suppose I don't quite get it, and that is why I stated I was confused..

reply from: carolemarie

i don't want to see women die from abortions....I think the staff should be held to standards and abortion providers who are negligent should be prosecuted, like any wrongful death case. Is this what you mean Yukki?
I think there should be standards so women are not pressured or forced into getting abortions they don't want. That would save the baby.... Counselors shouldn't get $$$ for each abortion they sell, that is a conflict of interest. Counseling should be mandatory, like it is for elective surgery, like breast augmentation ect.....
these are basic standards to protect patients from unscrupelous providers.
Women shouldn't die having an abortion. That is an undesirable state of affairs.
to save the baby, we should simply amend the constitution and ban performing abortions. but until such a time, we need to protect women from those who would exploit them.

reply from: siri

Carole-marie, are you set up to receive private messages and may I send one to you? I tried to a little while ago but it wouldn't let me through, then again this is the first internet forum I have ever posted to and I am a little computer challenged as you may have noticed previously. In the box labeled "send private message" I typed your name and then in the same box I typed the message. If not I can just ask you one of the questions here. Thanks.

reply from: carolemarie

maybe i have to many messages in there.....i will go delete some
and sure, you are welcome to send me a message...

reply from: faithman

Any law, at the end of the day, says you get to kill a womb child is not pro-life. It only makes Abortion on demand harder to fight, as it makes it look legit to kill womb children if you only do it right. Only the willingly stupid would not see that.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I'm not at all impressed with the idea that "women shouldn't have to die having an abortion, so we should make it safe for them to do that". We need to concentrate on stopping the attempt to kill the baby first, IMHO.

reply from: carolemarie

no reason why both cant be done....women dying in abortion is just as unacceptable as babies dying from abortion

reply from: siri

Carole-marie--Nope, machine's not letting me do it. Says "user either does not exist or does not want to receive messages." Oh well. So, I wanted to say two things, one is that I have wanted many times to jump in when vile things have been said to you but didn't because I wondered if it might hurt you with the other prolifers, since you already get grief for getting along with the prolifers. You are like some kind of lovely, shining light on this site (not only you, but most strongly).
I originally joined this forum because I was truly interested in challenging some of my stereotypes about prolifers and I have been interested lately in doing that because I have become troubled about abortion. I have always been big on animal rights and I am seeing some parallels between the two. I can't see myself ever supporting it made illegal, but I think there is a callousness from atleast some (I don't know how many) on my side that I hadn't previously seen. One book on my bookshelf even puts quotes around the word "killing", as if we should somehow deny even that abortion is killing. I am concerned about fetal pain, fear, etc. I want to see abortions become unnecessary, or atleast very rare.
Since joining this forum, however, the fetus has receded for me because I am increasingly kept so busy just responding to personal insults, etc. I don't think this site is ultimately where much healing, dialogue, solutions between the two sides is going to take place. I think I will stay on however because some of the conversations are interesting. I have learned some things and it has forced me to clarify some of my own positions to myself and think more about the violence in my life--like I'm thinking that I want to go back to eating a mostly vegan diet again, etc.
The 2nd thing is I wanted to ask you if you remember the title of the thread(s) here where you discuss your unplanned pregnancies/abortions in detail? I would like to read about it. I know it's a sensitive subject.
I mentioned to ProInformed in response to her post to me that I had read some writings by some prolife feminists in a newsletter that were interesting to me. I asked her if she would like to recommend any books by prolife feminists, but after posting back and forth a few times, she then ignored me. If you have any in mind you are welcome to mention them to me. I would be most open to books from a left, particularly a feminist left, p.o.v. I looked up "abortion" on abe.com but hundreds of thousands of titles came up. I am ordering a book called "The Liberal Case Against Abortion."
Anyone else who reads this post is welcome to respectfully post back and recommend some to me as well.
Take care of yourself.

reply from: faithman

Women die of abortion because of their "choice". Don't want to die of abortion, don't have one!!. But what choice did you give 3 of your own? You can't say purposely killing is "just as unacceptable" as something that is accidental. They are not the same at all. To try and say so, is to devalue the life of an innocent child. To say that a woman who dies killing her child is the same as killing the child, shows just how twisted, and un-prolife you truely are.

reply from: CDC700

Total nonsense, The act of killing can often result in death and that's the nature of killing. There's a consequence for everything. If you don't want to die from driving intoxicated, read warning labels and don't drive under the influence. If you don't want to die from a failed parachute, don't skydive. If you don't want to bleed to death, don't kill your baby.

reply from: sander

Total nonsense, The act of killing can often result in death and that's the nature of killing. There's a consequence for everything. If you don't want to die from driving intoxicated, read warning labels and don't drive under the influence. If you don't want to die from a failed parachute, don't skydive. If you don't want to bleed to death, don't kill your baby.
Well said.
It's the squishy middle that will keep abortion legal.
It's a precious few that want to and will face the cold hard facts.
Death from abortion is 100% preventable for the mother. Death because of abortion is 100% certain for her darling baby.

reply from: Yuuki

Moderates: We are the majority. You need us. Now convince us.
Hint: Insane, offensive rants by your most conservative nutjobs won't do it.

reply from: Yuuki

How do you prevent babies from being killed by making abortion mills "safer"?
Because abortion is not safe for the woman in the first place. Abortion harms a woman; a woman-safe clinic cannot therefor logically offer abortions...

reply from: yoda

But there is a reason to make one of them your top priority........ let me guess, your top priority would be to make abortions "safer for the woman". Am I right?

reply from: faithman

How do you prevent babies from being killed by making abortion mills "safer"?
Because abortion is not safe for the woman in the first place. Abortion harms a woman; a woman-safe clinic cannot therefor logically offer abortions...
Your verbal feet shure work in a fancy way. Kinda cute though....

reply from: yoda

None of those are the stated goals of the owner of this forum. He has stated in the past that it is for the exchange of information between prolifers, and for the "entertainment" of prolifers. Proaborts are "tolerated".
And I agree with him on downplaying "solutions between the two sides" too. That's pie in the sky, fantasy stuff. Until a proabort agrees that abortion is evil, they have no good reason to want to reduce them.

reply from: yoda

Seems like common sense to me. That Karma stuff is a b**ch.

reply from: yoda

You do realize, that borders on insanity, right?

reply from: siri

None of those are the stated goals of the owner of this forum. He has stated in the past that it is for the exchange of information between prolifers, and for the "entertainment" of prolifers. Proaborts are "tolerated".
And I agree with him on downplaying "solutions between the two sides" too. That's pie in the sky, fantasy stuff. Until a proabort agrees that abortion is evil, they have no good reason to want to reduce them.
There are many, many levels of evil/karmically consequential/destructive things. Sometimes the littler ones prevent the bigger ones. I don't take abortion lightly but our entire ecosystem--you know, that fancy word for "the thing that sustains all life ie our entire species included"--is collapsing. Whatever the (horrendous) number of unborn lives is who have been taken does not compare to the 7 billion number of BORN lives that are threatened with extinction if we do not get our population under control. We have expanded beyond the carrying capacity of our mother the earth which is about to abort US, and that should scare even the people too callous/ignorant to care about all the other species.
So what is the answer? Mainly, voluntarily slowing our birthrate through the use of birth control and sterilization--that is the best way, with the least pain and consequences for all involved. But I don't know that there has ever been a method of birth control that is perfect and this being an imperfect world, some abortion may always be necessary. YOU are the one who lives in a pie-in-the-sky world.

reply from: faithman

None of those are the stated goals of the owner of this forum. He has stated in the past that it is for the exchange of information between prolifers, and for the "entertainment" of prolifers. Proaborts are "tolerated".
And I agree with him on downplaying "solutions between the two sides" too. That's pie in the sky, fantasy stuff. Until a proabort agrees that abortion is evil, they have no good reason to want to reduce them.
There are many, many levels of evil/karmically consequential/destructive things. Sometimes the littler ones prevent the bigger ones. I don't take abortion lightly but our entire ecosystem--you know, that fancy word for "the thing that sustains all life ie our entire species included"--is collapsing. Whatever the (horrendous) number of unborn lives is who have been taken does not compare to the 7 billion number of BORN lives that are threatened with extinction if we do not get our population under control. We have expanded beyond the carrying capacity of our mother the earth which is about to abort US, and that should scare even the people too callous/ignorant to care about all the other species.
So what is the answer? Mainly, voluntarily slowing our birthrate through the use of birth control and sterilization--that is the best way, with the least pain and consequences for all involved. But I don't know that there has ever been a method of birth control that is perfect and this being an imperfect world, some abortion may always be necessary. YOU are the one who lives in a pie-in-the-sky world.
We are no where near the earths capacity for population. We could sustain 8 times the current worlds population. We only farm 11% of the worlds farmable land, and america alone could feed the world's population. The worlds problems have to do with form of government than anything else. Abortion is never nessisary. [talk about brain washed]

reply from: siri

Yes we are and no we can't. You asserted these things before and I responded to them point by point on pg. 2 of the thread "Some people should just take the time to think" which is on page 3 in the archives if anyone wants to read it. Not saying you don't have the right to assert your opinions as many times as you wish. But if they are in error I will keep refuting them.
I will only repeat one of my statements to you which I made on that thread which is that I don't care if we are farming on only 11% of farmable land because 11% is ALREADY TOO MUCH. That 11% used to be wild habitat for plants and animals which are now GONE. There is not enough habitat for the animals that remain so the last thing I would want to do is remove more of it. I will repeat, scientists tell us that 100 species are going extinct right now every DAY from loss of habitat and food (also pollution). The ecosystem which sustains ALL life including our own is collapsing.
Human centeredness is evil, when we love only ourselves and not the other 99.9% of God's creations.

reply from: faithman

You have refuted nothing, but merely repeated the ole eugenic party line. Everything you have posted is a lie. The world is not over populated, and it is your socialist police states that do more eco harm than anyone else. When wild life is considered a comodity to be managed, they do very well indeed. When nature is "worshiped" things go very bad. You are not the answere, but the curse.
http://www.pop.org/u-s-documents/....http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation.php.........http://www.henrygeorge.org/popsup.htm......

reply from: Yuuki

You do realize, that borders on insanity, right?
How so?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRYkeYHUWUU&feature=player_embedded#!


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics